What does the EOS R tell us about Canon and the RF mount's future?

Despite not being tremendously exciting, I believe Canon's EOS R shows a more adventurous attitude, at least by Canon's standards, than we're used to seeing. Having shot with the camera, spoken to Canon and read the tea leaves, here's what I think the EOS R tells us about Canon and the RF's mount's future.

The RF mount

Interestingly, both Canon and Nikon have settled on a similar solution: a short, wide lens mount and have both said it gives them greater design freedom when it comes to making lenses. Canon gave a little more detail about the ways in which it does so.

Both Canon and Nikon have settled on a similar solution: a short and wide lens mount

The shorter flange-back distance allows Canon to mount a large rear lens element much closer to the sensor, and the wide diameter means they can create lenses that don't need to squeeze light through a narrow tunnel. Designing lenses that don't have to make such dramatic adjustments to the course of the light passing through the lens allows lenses with fewer optical aberrations. It also gives the option to use fewer elements, which can make some lenses lighter.

I said I thought it was an uncharacteristically bold move by Nikon to step away from the F-mount and I think you could say the same for Canon. If someone were trying to be really cynical, they might suggest Canon and Nikon are making such a noise about the use of wide and short designs just so they can imply a design limitation in Sony's narrower E mount. But having shot the 28-70mm F2 wide-open a little over the last few days, I'm more likely to believe there's some benefit to what Nikon and Canon say they're doing.

But perhaps that's where the comparisons with the Nikon should end.

The quiet radical

While Nikon tried to mimic its DSLR's behavior as closely as possible, but primarily using its live-view AF modes, Canon seems to have taken a more open-minded approach. The general perception we see from our readers (and it's one we have some sympathy for), is that Canon is a cautious company with a dominant market position that discourages the kinds of unexpected innovation we see from the likes of Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony.

The EOS R has a number of interesting features, including the habit of stopping down its lens on shutdown. This lets the company close the mechanical shutter to reduce dust ingress, since it minimizes the risk of sunlight condensed by the lens warping the shutter blades.

But that's not true of the EOS R. For years we'e been calling on manufacturers to try to work from a blank sheet of paper, rather than just doing what's always been done. And the more we've used the EOS R, the more it feels like Canon has at least tried to do that. Not to the extent of throwing everything away, but at least using this new system as an opportunity to think about which existing elements they want to maintain and where there's room for something new. So not quite a blank sheet, but at least stopping to consider existing assumptions.

It looks to me like a genuine attempt to create the best of both worlds

More so than the Nikon Z cameras, Canon has taken some elements of its live view AF system: Face + AF Tracking mode, for instance, but then blended this with the way AF points work on its DSLRs. It looks to me like a genuine attempt to create the best of both worlds, rather than being completely constrained by trying to deliver what they think their existing customers will expect.

The EOS R takes the Face + Tracking mode from its live view system but adds the custom option from its DSLRs that lets you choose whether to specify the starting subject or let the camera choose.

There is a lot of continuity, though. For instance in continuous autofocus mode, Face + AF Tracking works, by default, analogously to Canon's 61-point auto system: automatically picking a subject and following it. And, like on those DSLRs, there's a menu option to change this behavior so that you specify the starting point and subject for the camera to track. It's an interesting blend of the live view AF mode with DSLR behavior that I think says a lot about the approach Canon has taken.

The EOS R feels like a 'version 1' product

Of course the down-side of starting afresh (relatively), is that you introduce new problems and bugs that you'd ironed-out of your existing interface. There are certainly aspects that make the EOS R feels like a 'version 1' product: something we don't usually expect from Canon.

Innovative touches (for better or worse)

The EOS R also shows some innovative touches in its design, some more visible than others.

The M-Fn Bar along the back of the camera can be customized to act as two buttons and a 'swipeable' control pad. None of us have been very impressed, so far.

The funky 'M-Fn Bar' control strip along the back of the camera, for instance. To me it feels a touch gimmicky. I've yet to find anything I really want to assign to it, find it easy to inadvertently operate and have experienced the occasional glitch when I do intentionally use it (another very un-Canon-like experience).

The M-Fn Bar will need to evolve into something useful or will die-out.

It's a fun idea and a very prominent display of original thinking, but it feels to me like the 'Touchbar' that Apple has added to its recent laptops: a device looking for a purpose and one that I think will need to evolve into something useful or will die-out in a couple of generations. Worse still, it occupies a prime location on the back of the camera and, while you can configure it to essentially just act as two buttons, there's only a limited choice over what those two buttons do.

We were all quite impressed with the clicking control dial on all the RF lenses. We were even more impressed that Canon has made an adapter ring that means you retain the capability when working with EF lenses.

An idea I suspect will persist is the additional, clicking control ring on the RF lenses (whose function, cleverly, is duplicated on one of the EF-to-RF adapters Canon offers). It's a cute move - one first tried by Samsung - that lets you quickly access another camera parameter without the body being overrun by dials. We're also told Canon service centers will (for a fee), 'de-click' the dials on your lenses if you need smooth or silent operation for video work.

The illusion of customization

But there are also signs of Canon still being, well, Canon. A criticism we've leveled at Canon over the years is that, even when it does offer customization, it's often very restrictive in how much change it lets you make. Sadly, while the EOS R initially appears to take some steps in the right direction: a large number of buttons are customizable and have an extensive set of custom options available (between 25 and 45, depending on the button), the reality is different. In many instances they're not necessarily the custom options you might want, and you'll still have to learn which features can be placed on which buttons before you can find your preferred setup. Or, at least, the closest to it that Canon allows.

You still can't always do everything you might want: despite lots of options about which dial controls what setting. There's relatively little choice over which dial controls Exposure Compensation, for instance. And there's no easy way to gain access to the Auto ISO threshold setting, without digging into the main menu. There's also little access to drive mode or metering mode, meaning the EOS R is a camera that demands you use the Q.Menu, rather than letting you put everything at your fingertips.

In perhaps the most un-Canon-like move imaginable, it's said it will improve these cameras via firmware updates.

However, in perhaps the most un-Canon-like move imaginable, the company has also said it will implement a new policy of improving these cameras via firmware updates. Fingers crossed.

RF > EOS R

What perhaps makes all of the positives harder to see is that the first camera, the EOS R, isn't very exciting. The pre-launch rumors and use of the 5D IV's sensor led a lot of people to expect an EOS 5D IV level camera, which it most certainly isn't. But even as something more comparable to a 6D Mark II it's still a little underwhelming.

The pictures it takes are great, which shouldn't come as a surprise for a camera with the 5D IV's sensor. The dynamic range isn't class-leading but it's much closer to being competitive than Canon had previously been. It also feels superb when you first pick it up: solid, comfortable and with well-positioned controls, at least for the most part.

After admiring the hand-feel of the camera, the second thing you'll notice is the apparent lack of means of controlling the AF point. The touchpad mode, disabled by default, is the only sensible way to operate the EOS R.

The rest of package is a little less impressive. Heavily cropped 4K video with visible rolling shutter isn't the level of performance most other brands are offering (though the inclusion of Canon-Log and 10-bit output suggest the company wants to do video properly in these cameras). Separate exposure settings for video (which was part of what sounds like an anxiously-made decision to dispense with the conventional mode dial), and separate button custom settings for video are big steps forward.

The EOS R's burst rate (with AF at least) is also poor by contemporary standards, again suggesting a sensor or processor bottleneck.

The bigger picture

But while we're not especially blown-away by the EOS R, I think we're all quite impressed by the system it hints at. It should be pretty obvious that Canon didn't develop a $3000 28-70mm F2 zoom or $2300 50mm F1.2 to be mounted on a $2300 mid-range full frame body. Nor does it seem likely that its engineers works away to produce a 24-105mm F4 with silent autofocus, 1/8th EV aperture control and extremely well controlled focus breathing for a camera whose 4K capture gives it a 40mm equivalent wide-angle field of view.

Canon didn't develop a $3000 28-70mm F2 zoom to be mounted on a mid-range body.

Beyond the system, I also think that the EOS R shows Canon being more flexible and innovative than we're used to seeing, whether it's in the apparent approach to the UI development, the creation of the M-Fn Bar or its stated willingness to improve the camera via firmware updates. Just as I said of Nikon, I hope Canon will retain this more adaptable approach as the system continues to develop.

If you're a Canon DSLR shooter, it's probably not yet time to begin the migration across to the RF system, but the work the company has already done and its apparent approach make us believe it'll look increasingly compelling in the coming years. If that's enough to stop you thinking about jumping-ship (with your existing lenses) to Sony, then I suspect Canon's done what they were trying to achieve. It'll be interesting to see what the RF series leads to.

Because everyone who needs one has a camera that can mount EF lenses (including Canon DSLRs, Canon EOS R, and even Sony cameras with an adapter), and virtually nobody has a camera that can mount RF lenses (yet). There is no advantage to the shorter flange distance for long lenses like this, and virtually no disadvantage in adding an adapter.

I hear talk of cripple to protect segments , not the best way to make a new start for this company. I remember the A1 when it arrived and the wow factor, also the EOS 1 which I bought within days of arriving. So many of the styles of this unit look 000 digit series , yet it arrives with a £3000 f2 lens..... again a conflict of style and message.

If you remember the EOS 1 you should also remember that Canon introduced the EF mount with a lower spec camera (the EOS 650) 2 years earlier and other more modest cameras subsequently. Yet they also released the 300 f2.8 L a few months after the 650, and before releasing the EOS 1 had also produced flagships such as the EF 600 f4L and 200 f1.8 L. The A1 was a great camera, but it had been preceded by many other Canon SLRs. Clearly Canon plans a series of EOS R releases in the future, some being much more advanced than this first release.

I have many mixed feelings about the "R" , some can be perhaps best expressed by a comment from a Canon Exec a while back . Though I can't recall the exact words it was something of the nature " I have called for us to inovarte and move on , but others were reluctant or held back". They say that a camel is a horse designed by a committee, and perhaps an internal conflict could cause a compromised and negotiated design. That compromise can arrive from product conflict and market jitters, not wanting to alienate user base.The change of mount is electric contact and not like Nikon's throat size , so perhaps we will see the true reasons for this in a later model , but for now its a large change with little visible gain. An extra perceived cost and trauma without obvious gain is likely to cause the negative feelings much unwanted.

The big problem with lenses, is that unlike Nikon, Canon gave us no future lens roadmap. Not to mention that the lenses that were introduced are not ones I would want nor is using an adapter something I would do. Where are the wide fast primes?

Canon did a lot to improve their wide zoom lenses. The new mount will benefit wide lenses the most. We will see some amazing wide R lenses in the future. Primes might not be their first priority, three zoom ideas come to mind: 10-24mm f4, 17-35 f2 or compact 16-35 f4.

It will be interesting to see if the next Canon APS MILC is RF mount or M mount. I would not be surprised if Canon introduced an adapter so RF lenses can be mounted on EOSM though I have not checked the flange distances to see if this is even possible. Or perhaps Canon wants people to skip apsc and go straight to FF. They need a cheaper body for that though so I see a mirrorless with the 6Dii sensor with even fewer features at a lower price point next. Canon loves to decontent to get lower price. Maybe $1,200?

RF on M is 99% not happening. Would be very difficult to fit. Also the lenses released would make very little sense on M (weight, price).I do expect the M mount to either pass a way in a few years, unless they decide to keep it the super cheap system at the low end, destroying the market for the others. I could see an APS-C RF sports camera though...

A positive view: I think it is absolutely great that Canon and Nikon have made these new mirrorless cameras available to their entire existing lens line without significant penalty. That's incredible progress. It had to happen to even be a fair start. I think third party adapters are next and ideally it would be amazing if we would be able to mount Nikon on Canon or Canon on Sony in the future. There is not a physical reason preventing this! I also think both cameras are very good enthusiast FF mirrorless bodies and the lenses they have released for both look really very good. (Especially the Canons). Great! The advances to AF in the mirrorless segment just pushed progress up a notch as well. Panasonic is very likely going to introduce a FF mirrorless this month. The competition is fierce, but I expect the Panasonic to be a no-holds-barred professional video/photo package. They simply don't have to hold back their flagship to protect their DSLRs. But they don't have the DSLR lenses.

Correct, the EOR R isn't impressive at all... However, the system may have a good future.... Nikon's Z6/Z7 are much better cameras, but why is Nikon making me wait two more years to get a 50mm f/1.2??? The 50mm f/1.8 they launched isn't nothing new (well, it looks very sharp...) and the current Nikon 50mm f/1.4 isn't performing well... Canon launched an unimpressive camera but with good new lenses and adapters...

Because Nikon also has little confidence in moving forward and making a large investment. Its not easy or cheap and they decided to not place funds supporting their new mount. 3 lenses at launch is laughable. With no fast lenes and only 11 or 12 planed over ANOTHER 3 years.

I think it's that second-to-last sentence that says it all. This EOS-R is really just a stop gap measure to try and stop the hemmoraging of customers to Sony. Canon isn't REALLY serious about mirrorless, and hasn't been for a long time. They just want to keep selling the same old thing, which is why they kept making 18 MP cameras for such a long time, and also that's why they haven't changed the 50 MP cameras in such a long time. By now they should have made an inexpensive 50 MP camera and cameras that do 4Kp60, but they don't and won't . . . until they HAVE to . . . which is exactly what this EOS-R is . . . a camera that they feel they HAVE to make . . . to trick their customers into thinking they should wait even longer. I hope Panasonic makes a full-frame camera, so the competition heats up and Canon is FORCED to innovate more. Obviously Nikon doesn't seem to want to force Canon to innovate. They had the opportunity to make a sensor with more than 50 MP, but they STILL haven't.

Second, sales of cameras are skewed to the bottom end of the quality range where the profits are the skinniest. If you are saying C'non sells most of the cheapo cameras then what is the relevance of that to this thread about FF cameras ?

Even if these high volume / low value sales generate some profits then C'non's record of ploughing these back into R&D is pitiful.

Given that 50 MP cameras demand expensive lenses to resolve that level of detail, there is little point to an inexpensive 50 MP body. Almost by definition, this is where any camera manufacturer is going to make pro level money.

Any full frame lens that performs well on 24 MP APS-C camera would perform well on a full frame 50 MP sensor (save for the corners). I have several legacy lenses (Konica and Pentax) that easily outresolve my 28 MP APS-C camera at f/4.

Canon says the M mount wouldn't have allowed them to use the lens designs they want to use for the RF series.

When asked they also suggested M and RF customers have different priorities (small, lightweight for M, highest IQ for RF). Interesting that there's no 'upgrade path' between the two, given how well that marketing approach has worked in the past.

Yes, they needed to partially heal certain pains to assure some percentage of loyal customers will continue when thrown a bone at them. Stop leaking? Didn´t work on me at all. Promptly testing waters with Sony I bought yesterday....

That new EF-M lens suggests instead that Canon might plan on maintaining both systems, with the not-totally-crazy idea that different formats go with different lens systems and are best served by mounts of different sizes. (This was always the case with film for brands like Pentax offering multiple formats.) EF-S mount allowed EF lenses to be used during the transition to the smaller format, but that does not work nearly as well when moving to a larger format that the M lenses are not designed to cover. Even though the EF-M lens system is limited compared to others, it probably already covers the great majority of lenses that buyers of mainstream-priced interchangeable lens cameras ever buy.

Richard Butler, your report of Canon thinking fits my guess, but which successful upgrade paths are you referring to?I do not count the "downgrade path" of using lenses from a large existing 35mm format lens system (with many millions of such lenses already owned) on APS-C format bodies as being the same thing at all, so the only upsizing I know of is Sony E to FE; do you know how much using use of EF lenses on E bodies (or vice versa) has happened?

EF-S lenses don't work on EF. Confused? The fact that EF-S will work on RF could hint that their might be an APS-C R on the horizon...I always thought APS-C lenses on FF made very very little sense. Also FF on APS-C only makes sense for tele, which is readily available in the form of the EF mount, and will be for years. Canon thought this through, I'm not confused at all.My only confusion is, will they release new gems such as the new 50L for EF as well, or when will EF be officially dead?

The whole point is that the RF mount is supposed to allow the design of some lenses that couldn't be created for the EF mount.

Given how large the rear element of the 50mm F1.2 is, and how close it sits to the sensor, I strongly suspect this is one of the designs they're talking about.

Canon says it will keep developing lenses for EF and RF, which makes sense given there are millions of EF users and currently zero RF customers. But there's no sense in creating a new mount then limiting all the designs to work with your older mount. In the long term, it seems likely that RF is the company's future.

EF-S lenses work on R mount because EF mount lenses do, and the only difference with EF-S lenses is that they might foul the mirror of an EF body — which is not an issue with an R body. So its a side effect, not an active design decision.

Richard Butler: I’ve seen success in allowing an extensive lens system for a larger format to be used on a new smaller format, but I’ve not seen any evidence of a lot of people buying into—for example—EF-S and then reusing the same lenses on EF bodies, which is the direction we’re talking about here. AFAIK, EF-S bodies are overwhelmingly equipped with EF-S lenses, and the (small minority) who then moved to EF mount mostly get new lenses.

"that Canon is a cautious company with a dominant market position that discourages the kinds of unexpected innovation..." is the most kindly written statement I have read about Canon's deep sleep in regard to innovation since many years. It's a catch-up game for Canon, and I don't think that many of those who switched to other brands since 2012 will come back. Price is probably the best where Canon can still convince buyers with.

If you check the number of patents granted in 2017, or any other year for that matter, you might reconsider your judgement on Canon. Going by that list they are BY FAR the most innovative company in the photography business.

Coptal Fit: I thought they will follow this strategy firstly used on M50. EOS R for $1399 would be nice middle finger showed to other manufacturers. Instead, it was showed to loyal Canon customers. I cannot anymore. Good bye Canon...

> Price is probably the best where Canon can still convince buyers with.

I was hoping for an "everyman" full frame mirrorless capitalizing on the relative simplicity of the system and canon's existing mirrorless experience delivering a system with canon's traditional great bang for the buck but instead we got a system that starts. STARTS at $3K with the kit lens.

AMD, innovations are not released products either. Patents protect innovations, so they're a good measure of how innovative a company is. Steelhead3 came up with a nice soundbite that doesn't have any content. And yet you all ate it.

Maybe the future ended long ago-For a photo giant that doesn‘t listen to his customers and always trying to Take the highest prices for smallest innovation.Eos R is an ugly cam without any benefit for me.Luckily sold my expensive Canon stuff.

Whatever is said about this first FF mirrorless by Canon today, in 3-5 years we will see how Canon, Nikon and Sony will arm themselves to the teeth for supremacy in the market. What is impressive here is the new lenses launched native to this new mount, which shows us the latitude that remains untapped in terms of new lens technology.

If this entry by Canon . . . as their debut in the full-frame mirrorless world is any indication . . . Canon's not going to be arming anyone. They've given up and are just trying to get the most out of the system they have for as long as they can. They seem to just not be a serious camera company anymore. It's like they've decided that Sony is going to just out-compete with them, so they'll just sit back and collect profit for a while, and when Sony comes out on top they'll just call themselves a company with a huge, established base of old lenses, so their cameras are worth the high price, even though they aren't as good as their competition's . . . as if Sony doesn't have almost every lens ever made available to be used on their cameras via the various adapters available.

It is sad when Sony users boast of image quality using Canon glass on Metabones. It is even sadder they are of the illusion that Canon won't use its decisive edge on lens technology to later on go for leading this segment of the market as well. However, I contend Sony is going to be the undisputed leader as far as the PlayStation 4 is concerned. It is probably the only segment of consumer electronics today where it has a comfortable lead.

I get how some people dont select an AF point, they may use auto or face detection etc, so they may never have the need for a an easy way to move it. Every single shot I like to choose exactly what I want to focus on, but as I dont have a joystick I use the four way controller, fiddly, slow, annoying but worth it, particularly shooting at wider apertures. A joystick is such an intuitive and quick way to do this, cheap too. Touchpad is cool at times, depends on which eye you shoot, but I stopped using after a while due to too many accidental snafoos, not v dependable. Not sure how many think like this. Otherwise camera looks fine and the 50mm esp so. Do you guys select your own focus points or use other method generally?

I used to use center recompose, so quick and easy. I read that it can be quite inaccurate at with shallow dof so I stopped years ago without really checking the difference for the kind of shots I do. I am hoping a very small and accurate af tracking system will evolve (existing ones tend to cover quite large areas I thk) so focus track and recompose would be viable.

The problem is it will be a great system years after Sony and maybe even Panasonic already have their great system available. Who wants to wait for THAT day to come? Only suckers. I moved away from Canon back when they refused to put a tilt screen on any of their professional level cameras, even tough a Canon with a tilt screen was my first digital camera years earlier. I moved to Nikon to get the D5000 . . . because it had a tilt screen, like a Sony . . . and still had a good line up of lenses available. Eventually I finally switched to Sony, because I realized Nikon was going to drag their feet too. Now the D750 and D850 make me wonder why Nikon took SO long. Canon finally made a full-frame camera with a tilt screen . . . but it's only 26 MP, and the Nikon D850 is 45 MP . . . so it's still Nikon . . . or Sony . . . for me. It's sad, really. Hopefully Panasonic will make a full-frame camera with what I want in it. Sony almost did it.

I’m pretty sure for all the words padded around it, this is the key judgement the article is trying to push. Which of course allows DPR to do its part to slow the RF-system uptake to allow Sony (and to the lesser extent, Nikon) to maintain their MILC market state for *just* that much longer.

Because, really… where was this judgement during the early days of the Sony E/FE-mount and we early adopters had to deal with a sub-P&S UI that didn’t even allow the bracketing functionality and self-timer to be used together? When the lens catalog was a joke (see the SEL16F28, SEL30M35, and the SEL24F18 they wanted $1000 for)? Where was this insight when the NEX-7 arrived with un-optimized microlenses that produced purple corners? Where was the finger-wagging when the A7 sensor toppings produced internal reflections that made it worthless for night photography that at all involved point light sources?

When the mount suffered from light leakage problems? When the NEX-6 overheated during stills shooting because Sony switched from copper heatsinks to aluminum? When the masked OSPDAF sensels produced green pinstriped reflections on backlit flare-washout shots? When the lens catalog remained a joke (see all the f/4 Zonys that threw the Zeiss-licensed name under the bus, and the SEL35F28Z that they wanted ~$900 for)? When the lossy RAW compression produced artifacts in some circumstances? When the RAW-level spatial filtering eliminated the whole point of the shot (“Star-Eater”)? When the claimed “weather sealing” proved to be nothing whatsoever? When the menu, to this very day… remains an unusable mess?

That’s about 6-7 years for DPR to judge that Sony MILCs remained ‘version 1’ products. I would rather call them public betas that progressive photographers bought into with optimism and naivete at your blessing.

And yet such poison pills were never offered… because such a judgement, as benign as it might sound on the surface… is one of the most effective ways of suppressing sales, to cue people to hold-off and wait for the implied more-sorted-out version of the future. Which of course may never come as those words manifest the gentle, stillborn death of the nascent system. Granted, that would probably have been true for Sony given their long, regular record of abandoning users of their proprietary standards at some serious sag in sales (see Beta, SACD, MiniDisc, Memory Stick, etc; A-mount is on life support), while at the same time it would be reasonable to assume that Canon would stick-with-it until it took (see EF-M). You would assume that the future of the RF-mount can take this sort of tough love, and your uncoated judgement will drive it to reach ever-greater heights.

Thematic: You apparently can't read. They mentioned those flaws after-the-fact, and never put into words the judgement that the early Sony MILCs were the obviously undercooked products that they were, and therefore future generations should be better and prospective users should wait. It was just implied that it was just part-and-parcel of being state-of-the-art... and people were not told to expect better. So a lot of people just accepted the shortcomings and committed, myself included.

In contrast, DPR is now going out of its way to tell people in-not-so-many-words to not commit and wait for better.

Do you now see the difference between what they did here and what they did then?

Do you think that had DPR told people at any point that the NEX-3/NEX-5/NEX-5N/NEX-7/NEX-6/A6000/A6300/etc. and A7/A7R/A7S/A7II/A7RII/A7SII were all half-baked and they should hold off until the generation they finally got it "refined"... that there would be an E/FE-mount system like it is today?

No, it's you who can't read DtEW. It takes seconds to pull up the reviews of the original A7A7R to see plenty of cons mentioned including the limited lens line up you whinge about mentioned IN THE REVIEW back in 2014.

The problem Canon have got is Sony not only refined these cameras they have set a benchmark as what to expect in such a camera and for whatever reason Canon failed to match it. For a maker with such experience as Canon this is a poor show. I would have expected their first offering to at least match the Sony feature by feature but really I expected them to better them.

It's not 2014 so Canon is not competing with the original A7/A7R but with the 2018 models. Alas Canon seems to think it really still is 2014.

Just as with Sony in 2014, I expect many who are interested are already waiting for the MkII and there is no excuse for Canon to start down this track with such an uncompelling offering.

Dave Oddie: Like Thematic, you apparently can't read either. I did not mention ANYTHING about the limited lens line up; that's to be expected in a new system, as nobody can realistically expect a system to be launched with a full complement lenses to comprise a complete system. The only thing I said in regards to lenses was how specific lenses sucked greatly (most of them were mediocre until recently) and were exorbitant for what they were.

But you chose to ignore all the other problems of the E-/FE-mount that I brought up and were never mentioned by DPR until it became obvious after-the-fact. Worse, no prospective user was ever told to "wait until they get this right" that they are going out of their way to do so now.

The good news is that many EOS R previews/reviews are surfacing now with overall excellent opinions. It is not a A7III but who cares when you get a tremendous catalogue of great lenses (w/$99 adapter) plus a set of new extraordinary lenses that are NOT going to be adaptable to Sony or Nikon cameras. The Sony a7iii with the Sigma adapter comes out at almost the same price as the EOS R with the EF to EOS R dapter but, it doesn't offer 100% compatibility in the Sony bodies as with the EF to EOS R. Good Sony native lenses are more expensive than equivalent Canon lenses.

Woah, did you really just violate the character limit 3 times!? I think you are seeing through Canon glasses. I think, in this market, at this time, with the developments we seen over these past years, Richard gave an honest editorial as he did with Sony when they were innovating a new path. This camera is honestly a real winner for Canon faithful stepping up from a 80D or 5D Mark II. It does show promise in the right direction but this is not 2014.

You just stated: " I did not mention ANYTHING about the limited lens line up; that's to be expected in a new system . . ." If that's the case, then what did you mean by, "When the lens catalog was a joke . . ." then?

The fact is Canon SHOULD be held to a higher standard. They are the top camera company in the World by more than one metric. Their professional level cameras are only rivaled by Nikon's. For a while Nikon was beating Canon in the megapixel race, but Canon didn't seem to mind . . . as if the megapixel race was over. It's not, but it HAS slowed down . . . way down. Surprisingly though, Canon, the company with the DSLR that has the most megapixels, has decided not to develop their first mirrorless camera with a really high resolution sensor. Instead they've made it "affordable" . . . in a way, I guess. I think it's disappointing. I think the Nikon offering of an affordable model and a high-end model was the right way to go. Canon is just sticking their finger in the dike.

SirSeth: Just recounting all of what I remember of the teething problems of the E/FE-mount when I was in that community itself exceeded the character limit; I couldn't even fit that in a stand-alone paragraph. I think that's a statement in itself.

I have no beef with the idea that the EOS R as-it-stands is not an A7III-beater. It wasn't intended to be, but it has some key technologies (the less-constraining RF-mount, and DPAF), resources (the might of Canon Inc.), and precedent (the greater-than-the-sum-of-its-specs typical of Canon Inc. products) behind it that offset its spec shortcomings.

My beef is with the idea that DPR, who has never told anybody to wait until Sony sorted out any of a number of newly-introduced-to-digital-photography issues/flaws... is now telling prospective buyers to wait on the Canon to put out an even better version despite the lack of Sony-like issues/flaws.

This disparity in "care" for the prospective consumer reveals the bias in their standards.

There's also a difference between being the only option on the market vs the third company to enter an established space. Bad menus are easier to tolerate if that camera is your only choice.

I thought we did a pretty good job of criticising the flaws in the original a7 and a7R. I also remember the barrage of abuse we got from our readers for not claiming they were the best thing since sliced bread, as many other publications did. There are some things I wished we'd been more critical of, in hindsight, but I don't think we went soft on them.

I don't know if it's easier to be biased or more difficult having handled and tested pretty much every camera made. But I do believe in the integrity of the team as over the years they have be accused of bias against pretty much every company. I'd rather have honesty and authenticity of someone trying to give a big picture of the current market--so thanks Richard. As far as huge flaws go, I owned my A7 for 3 years and didn't find the issues major or even noticeable unless you were looking really hard, but for the level of camera I think Canon and Nikon are competing against, they have some work to do to catch up. Now that they have made a commitment, I expect see improvements much more quickly than the DSLR product cycle.

Well to your point @DtEW the A7 got a brilliant 80% silver award from DPR, which is rarely given to any camera. Let's see what the EOS R gets when reviewed by DPR. But it should get more than 80% as it is much better than the original A7 for sure.

"There's also a difference between being the only option on the market vs the third company to enter an established space. Bad menus are easier to tolerate if that camera is your only choice."

While that statement might perfectly sound reasonable if we keep our blinders on and constrain the discussion to FF MILCs... how does that rationalization pass the smell test when more than half of the prior-mentioned Sony-unique (and often novel to photography!) issues/problems that didn't merit a "wait for better" from DPR actually manifested in Sony's APS-C MILCs in the presence of competition from the better-sorted Micro Four-Thirds Olympus and Panasonic MILCs?

Customizing buttons is one of the worst ideas for cameras. Buttons should do what they do, that's one of the powers of buttons, its reliable, steadfast, always at the ready, yes, a button, what a concept.

With so many functions already on modern digital cameras, and more appearing with every model, customizable buttons are really the only way to cater for all the different needs different photographers may have. (Although I must admit I have not used the ones om my cameras yet.)

Question: How do you enter a market that you really don't want to be in and wish didn't exist? Answer: Very, very carefully lest you hasten the demise of your Golden Egg laying Goose. Canon's problem is Canon (same for Nikon). DSLR sales put both companies into stratosphere. Mirrorless is changing all that and fast. The R and Z were made purposefully so that each gave just enough so as not to be too embarrassing but not enough to further erode DSLR sales. Only the Canikon loyalists and the clueless see either camera as sufficient. The rest of us are so not impressed. Sony Alpha Wins this round ;)

Answer: To get a piece of the EMERGING mirrorless market profit. Remember, Sony's market for mirrorless worldwide has stalled at 13% for some time. Canon is in no hurry, sometimes wait and watch is best.

@Richard Butler - Good question, because "Canon is a cautious company with a dominant market position that discourages the kinds of unexpected innovation we see from the likes of Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony', which is the characteristic of large successful companies.Just ask Toyota or Honda.

Much is discussed about these new mounts being bigger holes for the sensor to see through so lenses can be better somehow.

If that's true shouldn't APS-C Canikony cameras be a hotbed of their best high-performance, or best high-value, lenses? My impression is the best lenses are very expensive full-frame lenses. Am I missing something?

and the tinier sensor pixels offering identical resolution on APSC cameras cannot make best use of FF Lenses, that were intended for FF dSLRs (long back focus) not short back focus of "mirrorless-only" cameras

meanwhile, most of Sony's better "mirrorless-only" FF lenses use long back focus of FF dSLR lensesmost of Sony's "mirrorless-only" FF lenses using short back focus have terrible distortion, any okay ones might be a medium FL not so fast prime (that's it)

I did calculate some view angles using mount diameter, flange distance, sensor diagonal. APS-C Sony E-mount lenses should be the king of all APS-C lenses and they're not. So I guess just having a big hole for the sensor to look through doesn't mean very much.

they have carried over too much of old cybershot (integrated lens) short back focus optical designs that work fine on Live-View-Only videocameras, where poor optics can be massaged (pseudo-corrected) in-camera for EVF (oblivious) enjoyment

Nikon's new Nikkor 24-70mm f4 S (S = supposedly a good lens) suffers noticeable barrel distortion on the wide end, and pretty terrible pincushion distortion on the long end. visible in pure unaltered RAW NEFs. cooked RAW NEFs have baked in correction, but suffers NR artifacts any time its used in-camera or in post-processing

so, key to best IQ = START with least distorted BEST optics and avoid "all corrections" DURING capture (if stuck with distorted optics: correct it LAST, after NR!)

Here's an idea. Instead of operating in a world of teasers, "reveals", "fails" and other nonsense, Canon, with their dominant market position could show users what they are up to with this new type of camera.

Why not send Canon reps to shows and stores with prototypes and ask users, not endorsers, what they think. Everybody loves the drama of trade secrets but there's no excuse for developing a camera for 2 years only to find out that for many (vocal) people, one card slot is a non-starter.

P.S. For those of us who feel image quality is more important than any feature, if the R sensor is closer to a 5D4, then it's really not a 6D level camera.

This will be a very unpopular take....Because most users expectations exceed what they are willing to pay. We've all seen it " I want a 600mm super telephoto lens, but don't want to spend more than $2500" Or the kitchen sink of camera features for less than $2000. This isn't limited to Canon either it's for all models.

Your example is pretty poor, as the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses sell like hotcakes.There's always a couple of people in any group with unreasonable expectations, but most users can easily give you a list of what they prioritize. Fujifilm have been paying close attention to this, and as a result, they keep on enticing new shooters to join their system.Canon and Nikon keep on listening to themselves, a handful of pros, and market research "translated" to be "comprehensible" (i.e. heavily redacted) for their Japanese execs, leading to stupid feature mismatches and "ugly duckling" products that fail to gain traction (hello KeyMission, G5 X, Nikon 1, EOS M3, and many others...).

I have a somewhat contrarian view to some of the comments I read hear. Canon’s initial body might not be as exciting as the Nikon Zs, but Canon’s overall, long term strategy remains more coherent. I’ve written before that the dual pixel AF put Canon in a nice place for eventual full frame mirrorless and it looks like they’ve put it to good use. Likewise, Canon’s native lens and adapter strategy is looking good. Far from being the product of a company circling down the plug hole, I think this new system will sell.

But I hope Canon continues to develop EOS-M. If my year with a small, full frame system has taught me anything, it’s that it was the product of a want rather than a need (nice to have though, and I’m keeping it). I think smaller formats have a big future.

I agree about a bright future for smaller formats. No doubt they can be smaller (bodies and lenses) and especially cheaper. I've dipped my toe into the FF world, and one thing is for certain: the high quality lenses are simply too expensive for most people. Nothing wrong with a well executed smaller format camera.

@samuel - not meaningless. It is literally what it is, "most popular cameras on DPR". Almost always, when a new camera from any manufacturer shows up, it makes it onto this list if even for a short time. But this Canon hasn't made it there even once. Very strange.

Both Canon and Nikon had a big dilemma. How to enter the mirrorless market without killing existing business, yet attract both existing customers and new customers. Both companies have tried to position the new models between existing product lines as the solution. They couldn't position the product to compete with existing products as that proved as a failed strategy in the past. I think Nikon did a fairly adequate job while Canon has left some room for more models

"It is exactly like IBM in that CaNikon are sitting on top of a dominant legacy product that is challenged by upstart technology. It is different only in that Sony is an engineering and manufacturing behemoth that brings massive disruptive technology to bear instead of a plethora of smaller upstarts. And, don't forget the other mirrorless players who bring competent products to the market and are nipping at the heels of CaNikon."...continued:

"The product cycles and outcome are the same as with IBM versus the small computers. It works like this: Ignore them as long as you can, then release marginally competitive products to slow the erosion of customers jumping ship. That will be followed by more competitive products from Sony et al. CaNikon will be forced to follow suit with better mirrorless products which will further eat their DSLR line. The cycle repeats, and with each revolution the DSLR market gets smaller and smaller until it disappears completely. Think the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland. CaNikon cannot stand to cannibalize their legacy DSLRs in favor of cheaper mirrorless cameras. Like IBM they would be taking dollars out of one pocket and putting pennies back in another."...continued

Continued...."The example of IBM and the PC market precisely describes what is happening in the DSLR market today and predicts exactly where it is headed. The only real variables are how long it will take and who ends up eating dust (Canon, Nikon or both). Canon is not likely to be any more successful with mirrorless than Leica was in the SLR market. Niche rangefinders may forecast a niche market for DSLRs."

Cellphones have been far more disruptive to photography/gear than mirrorless offerings from any of the major camera companies... Waiting to see how things shake out before committing to a FF mirrorless body.

I am genuinely mystified as to why so many people get their knickers in a knot about Canon. The company plods along, delivering reliable, if unexciting, user-friendly products (except for some of the lenses, which are exciting). I own their gear, and it's fine. If you don't like it, buy something else and stop worrying.

I agree - a very clean fast electronic shutter will take its place. The A9 is almost(!) there according to J. Kasson, with ~ 1/150th to 1/160th of a sec. ES scan time (this is only for stills - the ES is sadly slower for video). The A9's mech. shutter travels the same distance in a little over 1/300th of a second - the A9's ES is only a stop behind. Sony'll do it first.

The A9's speed comes at a loss of DR, battery life, etc. A global electronic shutter would follow, but implementations of it so far have a significant effect on dynamic range (more so than the ES of the A9), so we're not there yet. Sony'll probably bring it to consumer ILCs first.

Don’t worry, I’m hardly slashing my wrists... but we did have a substantial commitment to canon in our little business... and whilst we still have 5 of their cameras at last count, Most work has now been replaced by other brands which can do some things which our clients want at prices they can pay...

So we have been disappointed that canon have not kept up with (our) markets needs... but hey ho!

Perfect? No... Better image machine than my 6D? YES!It is on order with 24~105, 35 1.8, and control ring adapter. I'll keep and still heavily use my EF 2.8L Holy Trinity. But I expect the 24~105 to be mounted most often -- 35 for street shooting.EF 35 1.4L will be sold. EF 40 and other much older EF lenses will probably go to family members.For my needs, the R ticks off all the boxes. And was reasonable priced (but they should have bundled the control ring EF adapter!)

What tells me about Canon R and Nikon Z FF MirrorLess is there will be more tweaks, cosmetic changes and ergonomictries in the future that they could have done in this introduction and release, like, what they have existing in their dSLRs just so they can hit you with a thousand pounds more for knobs and dials and larger grip more focus points, extra memory slot, brighter display, more pixels higher HDR ... aha! ha! ha! Chuckle! Chuckle! Can't believe these companies. Well, they got psychologist that study consumer behaviors ..... it so happen I am one of them. Waaaaaa !!!!

THAT IS HOW THEY ARE MAKING MONEY ... and you people fall for it. Why can't they give you people the pre-existing conditions in mirrored dSLRs? That sucks ... TOTALLY ... ABSOLUTELY ...

Simple. Christmas sales account for between 25% and 50% of the year total sales of various kinds of merchandise - non-essentials, basically - in most of the western world. So before the Christmas numbers are in, you can’t really say how well a certain article sold that year. Why do you think all the new camera releases come out _now_ and not in spring?

Companies that lead their market segment in sales, typically fail to re-invent themselves. This leads to cautious rather than ground breaking products, and the innovation that established their market dominance is gone. We see this today with Canon and Nikon.

Continuing this model, and with a look back to historical precedents, you'd have to say that Canon (and Nikon) have left the door open for innovative competitors to erode their market, and kill them off.

Sorry but this article is like lipstick on a pig. The R offers little to the 6Dmark 2 or 5Dmark4 owner other than to own the latest and first camera in a new line. IMO, this camera should have something compelling to offer besides bragging rights.It is a classic canon move, deliver a conservative product initially and then give us the camera we want somewhere around the second or third iteration.

I've never really made use of most of the gadgetry on modern slr's and mirrorless, even as I've switched systems over the years (Panasonic, Sony, Nikon). What finally brought me back to Canon was the straightforward things:1. Color in jpgs.2. Lens selection3. reliable autofocusSo, a 5D classic and handful of prime lenses is just fine.For the pros, every bit of tech that diminishes their cost in time is important. But for the vacation shooter like myself, the camera that is comfortable and helps produce satisfying photos is sufficient.

There was a legitimate complaint to be made that the 5D Mark III had horrible banding noise. This was addressed in the 6D, and the 5D Mark IV has that plus increased dynamic range. We must stop thinking of Dynamic Range as the be all and end all specification - it is a bit like saying "I will buy the car with the best 0-60 time, the rest be damned." For some very niche applications, perhaps you need the absolute best DR that modern technology can give you. For almost everything else, what Canon provides is more than sufficient. The comments in various forums aside, their continuing commercial success is evidence of that.

Arun - True enough, but wouldn't you rather have the extra DR for those occasions when it does serve a useful purpose?

Just because photographers in the past have managed to get great photos with comparatively under-specified and low-performance cameras, doesn't mean that modern photographers have to limit themselves to the same equipment.

@Yake Canon still hasn't got any sensor that is superior to the Sony sensors. Their 5dmk4's sensor just managed to close the gap somewhat but it is still much harder to lift shadows without ruining the pic.Canon's sensor are not bad but they lag behind as everything Canon have introduced the past couple of years.Name one example of a product that is really far ahead of the competition.

@PieterBThat really depends. Canonsensor were always better than Sony beyond ISO800... so if you're in the sportbusiness or use longer focallengths, there is nothing which beats a 1DXM2 (or Nikon D5 in that regard). Pushing shadows with ISO100 is only a theoretical problem in amateuer-forums ;)

@Yake it’s marginally sharper than the D850, A7RII or A7RIII but all those cameras offer much greater dynamic range, high ISO performance and noise performance. The 5DSr trades a lot for those few extra megapixels.

@PieterB Every Canon is ahead of the competition in ergonomics and color — those are real advantages well known to pro users. Canon is ahead in a bunch of lenses, like their entire T-SE line, the only fisheye zoom, the telezoom with converter built-in, the absolutely stunning 35/1.4LII, the gorgeous design of the new R, the innovative converter options for the R, the innovative customizable control ring on the new R lenses, etc. No one has matched the workhorse 24-70/2.8LII for size and quality and price. Even their old 5DSR sensor still outputs the most detail of any full frame camera by any maker.

P.S. Canon sensors are amazing for people photography. Sony has a small advantage for low-ISO DR. So call Sony "superior" — whatever.

@The Fat Fish, True, the 5DSR is superior in one aspect, inferior in several. But Sony fans typically fail to acknowledge Canon's superiority in anything. As Sony has a small advantage at low ISO, that becomes their #1 talking point in all photo forums 24/7/365.

Canon are superior in a few areas. Their lenses are great for one. Sadly they are lagging in some big areas. Video is the main one and sensor design is another. It's also a shame not to see IBIS in the EOS R.

@vscd: You are either not knowledgeable or deliberately misleading people. You compared DR at _PIXEL_ level, _not_ normalized to the same output size. Choose print, not screen. For 42 MP you certainly see less DR at pixel level. You can then check Bill Claff's data which confirms what I say.The A7ii is a much older sensor design and clearly not in the same generation.

Color is subjective but color is real. Sony may do well on an "engineering test" with color patches. That's probably how they designed their sensor: with color patches in mind. But is there any "test" in which Sony wins for photography of *people*? I haven't seen one. I photograph people, so that's kinda important.

I said the Canon 24-70/2.8LII is unmatched for size, quality and price. Sony may match for sharpness. I'm not sure whether it matches Canon's excellent bokeh — LensRentals doesn't check for that. Maybe someone has compared them. And the Sony lens clearly doesn't match Canon's for size and price. The Canon is 9% lighter and normally about 13% less expensive. With current sale pricing, the Canon is 22% less expensive.

More about gear in this article

Sony had the full-frame mirrorless market to itself for nearly five years, but it's no longer alone – the Nikon Z6 and Canon EOS R have both arrived priced to compete with the a7 III. We take a head to head to head look at these three cameras.

The Canon EOS R is a powerful mirrorless interchangeable lens camera with some neat features up its sleeve, but no product is perfect. Here are five ways we think that Canon could improve the EOS R, without redesigning the hardware.

Canon and Nikon finally entered the full-frame mirrorless market this summer with the brand-new RF and Z mounts. Now that we've had some time with the cameras, we wanted to revisit our earlier predictions and take stock.

The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.

Fujifilm's GFX 50R takes the image quality from the existing 50S model and wraps it in a new body with new controls and a lower price of entry. Is that enough to tempt you to pick one up for yourself? Find out how the GFX 50R performs in our full review.

The Mavic Air hits the sweet spot for many drone users, combining compact size with high performance and good image quality. Find out what makes it so useful, and why it might just be the best travel-friendly drone on the market today.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Montana judge Dana L. Christensen has ruled the Republican National Committee did not infringe upon the copyright of photographer Erika Peterman after they took a photo from a Democratic candidate's Facebook page without permission and altered it to use in a derogatory promotional mailer.

Leica recently announced the Q2, a digital rangefinder with a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens. It's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot with, but is it right for you? Based on our time with the camera, and its specifications, we've examined how well-suited it is for common photography use-cases.

Now that our Panasonic Lumix S1R has final firmware, we couldn't wait to get out shooting with it - and we also tried the high-res mode, which combines files to get 187 megapixel images. Because sometimes, 47 megapixels just isn't enough.

Drones can be useful tools in urban areas, where they're utilized for everything from news reporting to building inspections, but flying in these areas requires careful preparation. Here's what you need to know to do so safely.